War on terror: consensus - DAWN.com

IN the famous documentary 'The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of Politics of Fear', written and produced by Adam Curtis and first aired by the BBC in 2004, a detailed analysis on the politics of war on terror was presented.

The documentary focused on attacking the neoconservative policies and the narrative built around the war on terror by Bush's White House. It argued that after the decline in the power and ability of the American state to fulfil its citizens needs, the American establishment adopted a new narrative in which instead of promising its citizens to help fulfil their dreams, the politicians promised to protect their citizens from nightmares.

The use of fear as a tool to garner political power and support was first championed by the Reagan administration against the Communist enemy, a time when neoconservatives consolidated their power in Washington.

The neoconservatives adopted an ideology which mixed capitalist interests, Christian evangelism and the need for a foreign enemy to consolidate their power domestically and to project American power internationally.

On the tragic incident of the attack on Malala Yousufzai, we can see Pakistan's rulers borrowing the American experience of using politics of fear to garner political support for their objectives.

So the attack on Malala has been used to invoke fear in the people, and the government intends to use this fear to strengthen its hands politically. That people should be scared into accepting something which they don't believe in, suggests that the ruling establishment and its backers are not interested in a debate at all.

The war on terror is America's war. The Pakistani masses are convinced on this. And they cannot be scared into accepting otherwise. Any forced consensus regarding the war on terror imposed on the people would break after a while, as has happened so many times in the past, because a powerful consensus which holds is built on ideas that inspire, not emotions that invoke hatred.

MOEZ MOBEEN    
Islamabad

Progress through education
DASTARDLY attack on Malala Yusufzai by Taliban shooters just because she defied their diktat banning women's education took me to an era more than 100 years ago in time when a majority of Indian women were illiterate and faced severe difficulties, particularly if their husbands died young, as the women had no other means to earn a living.

Women who decided to educate themselves faced immense problems from the male-dominated society. People went to the extent of throwing cow dung on them from the sidewalks and also ridiculed them.

Third-degree treatment was meted out to them even using non-existent and baseless scandals (that were 'invented') to browbeat them into quitting.

But thanks to the strong determination of the women all these attempts at browbeating them proved ineffective.

Today, India can proudly say that it has as many educated women as men.

I hope Malala becomes a bigger icon than what she is already today and more and more Pakistani women become educated and pursue new thoughts fit for the 21st century.

There is a big difference between what a father can teach his children during their young and formative years and what a mother can. Fathers can generally teach them how to defend themselves, how to survive and how to make a living but only mothers can teach them to be human and humane. No country, therefore, can make a good social progress unless its mothers are well educated.

All right-thinking people would surely wish Godspeed to Malala. I personally hope that this iconic little girl will encourage more and more Pakistani women to take to higher education and make their next generation a better society.

K.B. KALE     
Jakarta

Strange logic
REHMAN Malik has tried to absolve the government of its responsibility by stating that it offered security to Malala's father but he refused. My question to him is: today if any other girl in Swat wants to speak actively for her right to get education, what should she do? Should such a girl first ask for a foolproof security from Rehman Malik before campaigning for her rights? Or should she just sit quietly in her home fearful of the monsters ready to pounce on her if she chooses to open her mouth?

Isn't it the responsibility of the government to ensure protection of not only Malala but of every other schoolgoing girl in Swat? Does the government think that by verbally condemning Malala's attack, it has done its duty? Is that all? Who will force the government to ensure rapid and robust measures of protecting the life of every citizen from these militants?

For if they cannot stop brutal murderers killing innocent girls, they have no right to be our rulers.

MUNEEBA IFTIKHAR
Lahore